It's not a matter of forcing the hardware features into the game, it's a matter of evolving the game/series based on the new hardware available. It could easily have been said back in 1998 that 2D top-down visuals are more suited to the Zelda series, but instead they took advantage of the hardware. It doesn't matter if the hardware it a new high tech controller or dramatically increased power. New console hardware is new console hardware, and it's up to developers to innovate around that hardware. Not to stay rooted to the series past.

The Wii U Game Pad has nothing to do with the "series past". There are far better ways to innovate and progress the series than just finding clever little things to do with the Game Pad. It's that kind of attitude that ends of isolating fans of the previous games in the series. Nothing about The Wind Waker's innovation was related to the control scheme available at the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the Zelda Team spends a lot of time on figuring out to implement the Game Pad in interesting ways, then they may neglect more pressing matters like giving the enemies, bosses, and puzzles a high level of polish. I want this game to exceed the previous games in basically every regard that is recurring to the Zelda series, and that includes the amount of available options.

You asked me if I would be happy with that control scheme, not if I thought other Zelda fans would be. I consider motion controls to be the superior option in cases where combat is restricted to simple button presses, so your system would not make me happy. And if that Zelda Informer poll is any indication, the majority of the Zelda fanbase LIKED motion controls. It's just a small vocal minority.

I'm hesitant to believe that.---More villains need to be protagonists. BIS proves it can work.Ridley, Ganondorf, Bowser, Fawful and King Dedede all for their own games!

It's not a matter of forcing the hardware features into the game, it's a matter of evolving the game/series based on the new hardware available. It could easily have been said back in 1998 that 2D top-down visuals are more suited to the Zelda series, but instead they took advantage of the hardware. It doesn't matter if the hardware it a new high tech controller or dramatically increased power. New console hardware is new console hardware, and it's up to developers to innovate around that hardware. Not to stay rooted to the series past.

The Wii U Game Pad has nothing to do with the "series past". There are far better ways to innovate and progress the series than just finding clever little things to do with the Game Pad. It's that kind of attitude that ends of isolating fans of the previous games in the series. Nothing about The Wind Waker's innovation was related to the control scheme available at the time, and there's nothing wrong with that. If the Zelda Team spends a lot of time on figuring out to implement the Game Pad in interesting ways, then they may neglect more pressing matters like giving the enemies, bosses, and puzzles a high level of polish. I want this game to exceed the previous games in basically every regard that is recurring to the Zelda series, and that includes the amount of available options.

Because the hardware advancement of the Gamecube was mostly concentrated on the internal strength of the hardware. So Wind Waker developed by taking advantage of that advancement. On the other hand, the advancement of the Wii and Wii U were concentrated into control hardware. So development time should be spent taking advantage of those control schemes. It doesn't matter what form the new hardware is, the reason we see new hardware, and the reason why series advance with such generations is that so new games can take advantage of new potential

It's not a matter of finding clever little things though. If they are just going to shoehorn the Gamepad in, that's a waste, like you mentioned. Rather, just like how the looked at the power of the Wii U and figured they could create a vast and seemless world with it, they should look at the Gamepad and figure out how it can impact the game.

You could say it takes away from polish, but then again, so does trying to figure out how to take advantage of the Wii U's internal hardware.---"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy

It's a fine control scheme; it works, but there's nothing special about it. I think that shielding should definitely be separated from locking on. It was one of the many things that made TP's enemies not threatening at all. Also, what do you mean by "advanced movement options?" The A button seems wasted if it's just an "interaction button" and nothing else. I think the roll should be activated by double-tapping the dash button. I like the use of the D-pad to make various menus accessible, although I think the map drawing and item selection should be able to be done from the Gamepad in real-time. You don't use the clickable sticks for anything; there's room there for some function. Four equippable items is good, although unless there is gyro aiming (which there should be) it would be a bad idea to equip any aiming items to the X or Y buttons.

I don't have a problem with one-button sword control. There's plenty of potential depth with that system plus a few techniques you can perform with buttons already dedicated to combat a la TP, as long as there is interesting and well-thought-out enemy design. After all, most of the enemies I designed in that topic a while back required nothing more than sword slices, shield parries, and jump attacks.

I really would like to see the developers use the Gamepad for something interesting beyond maps and menus. What's the point of having this expensive controller if they're not going to use it for anything meaningful? I'm sorry, but if you bought a Wii U and don't want any games to require the Gamepad, you have the wrong console. It doesn't need to be anything as game-altering as SS's motion controls, but I'm sure Nintendo was keeping Zelda in mind when they made the controller. Of course if they don't have any good ideas, they shouldn't force any, but I don't want to see a potentially interesting gameplay mechanic hamstrung because people are prejudiced against things they perceive as "gimmicks."

I think in order to bring this game into a new age of realism, this game should be shield-based. No child is blindly courageous enough to go running at giant monsters with some baby sword and think it will end well, give me a break.

This is why Link has the Triforce of Courage and you don't.

Like "Zelda + Link 4 ever". I'd like to think that's scribbled on this inside of Link's shield.

Zelda X Link is objectively the worst pairing. Zelda has never once been best girl in any of her games.

Well that's why this game is open world, the options are endless: you get to choose whose (or what's????) name gets written on the shield. The next generation of gaming.

For me, I think the whole Adam and Eve thing going on in Skyward Sword was the best part of that game. It's weird and I'm into it.

Because the hardware advancement of the Gamecube was mostly concentrated on the internal strength of the hardware. So Wind Waker developed by taking advantage of that advancement. On the other hand, the advancement of the Wii and Wii U were concentrated into control hardware. So development time should be spent taking advantage of those control schemes. It doesn't matter what form the new hardware is, the reason we see new hardware, and the reason why series advance with such generations is that so new games can take advantage of new potential.

Not all game genres are equally well suited for unusual control schemes, unlike a simple increase in console specs. All games can benefit from more content and greater frame rate as a result of greater memory space, but not all games benefit from a form of motion controls. Zelda, being a traditional adventure series, leans more towards a traditional control scheme being ideal.

You could say it takes away from polish, but then again, so does trying to figure out how to take advantage of the Wii U's internal hardware.

Not really, due to the inherent difference. The overworld is one of the largest complaints directed towards 3D Zelda games, and improved specs would be an obvious way to minimize further complaints. Similarly, rooms in dungeons can be made larger without the need of longer load times, allowing for more intricate puzzles. Then there's the possibility of adaptive enemy AI based on Link's equipped items, the environment, and nearby enemies. All of this is relevant to hardware specs and general innovation in the series. A unique control scheme doesn't have this benefit.---More villains need to be protagonists. BIS proves it can work.Ridley, Ganondorf, Bowser, Fawful and King Dedede all for their own games!

Because the hardware advancement of the Gamecube was mostly concentrated on the internal strength of the hardware. So Wind Waker developed by taking advantage of that advancement. On the other hand, the advancement of the Wii and Wii U were concentrated into control hardware. So development time should be spent taking advantage of those control schemes. It doesn't matter what form the new hardware is, the reason we see new hardware, and the reason why series advance with such generations is that so new games can take advantage of new potential.

Not all game genres are equally well suited for unusual control schemes, unlike a simple increase in console specs. All games can benefit from more content and greater frame rate as a result of greater memory space, but not all games benefit from a form of motion controls. Zelda, being a traditional adventure series, leans more towards a traditional control scheme being ideal.

You could say it takes away from polish, but then again, so does trying to figure out how to take advantage of the Wii U's internal hardware.

Not really, due to the inherent difference. The overworld is one of the largest complaints directed towards 3D Zelda games, and improved specs would be an obvious way to minimize further complaints. Similarly, rooms in dungeons can be made larger without the need of longer load times, allowing for more intricate puzzles. Then there's the possibility of adaptive enemy AI based on Link's equipped items, the environment, and nearby enemies. All of this is relevant to hardware specs and general innovation in the series. A unique control scheme doesn't have this benefit.

Not all game genres are well suited for any control scheme. Flight Sims are best suited for a joystick, FPSs are best suited for a mouse and keyboard. Fitness games are best suited for Kinect. Don't get me started on all the different Arcade game control schemes. But I digress

No, Zelda is the perfect series for motion controls, at least in terms of their execution in non-casual games. Yes, not all games benefit. Namely beat-em-ups and fighters, which require minimal lag and a very high level of precision and accuracy. Zelda games require none of those things at all, and most games have relatively simple controls. This means it's the perfect fit for the addition of motion. I honestly don't know how Zelda would work for the Gamepad, but I can't imagine Nintendo not thinking ahead when the created the Gamepad for where they wanted to take the Zelda franchise.

What the hell is "general innovation in the series". Why isn't a new control scheme part of this? Just because you don't see an immediate use of the Gamepad doesn't mean that the game's developers don't.---"Well, they sure don't make evil immortal sorcerers like they used to." - Klarion the Witch Boy

I think that shielding should definitely be separated from locking on. It was one of the many things that made TP's enemies not threatening at all.

That would have to either take away a button for use of equipping items, or make the shield an equipped item itself, unless you have another idea.

Also, what do you mean by "advanced movement options?" The A button seems wasted if it's just an "interaction button" and nothing else. I think the roll should be activated by double-tapping the dash button.

Rolling, Side-Hopping, and Backflipping, and potential new actions like that.

I like the use of the D-pad to make various menus accessible, although I think the map drawing and item selection should be able to be done from the Gamepad in real-time.

This would be an option for the Game Pad, but players using the Pro Controller would need to stop the game to do it.

You don't use the clickable sticks for anything; there's room there for some function.Four equippable items is good, although unless there is gyro aiming (which there should be) it would be a bad idea to equip any aiming items to the X or Y buttons.

- What do you have in mind?- That's a good point, although I don't believe that the Pro Controller has a gyroscopic sensor. Perhaps when you enter FP for an item like the Bow or Hookshot, the fire button could be defaulted to ZR. I imagine that being very ergonomic.

I don't have a problem with one-button sword control. There's plenty of potential depth with that system plus a few techniques you can perform with buttons already dedicated to combat a la TP, as long as there is interesting and well-thought-out enemy design. After all, most of the enemies I designed in that topic a while back required nothing more than sword slices, shield parries, and jump attacks.

Basically what my mindset has been for a while.---More villains need to be protagonists. BIS proves it can work.Ridley, Ganondorf, Bowser, Fawful and King Dedede all for their own games!

No, Zelda is the perfect series for motion controls, at least in terms of their execution in non-casual games. Yes, not all games benefit. Namely beat-em-ups and fighters, which require minimal lag and a very high level of precision and accuracy. Zelda games require none of those things at all, and most games have relatively simple controls. This means it's the perfect fit for the addition of motion.

Motion controls past how they were done in TP (which was very lightly and mostly just to make up for a lack of buttons), can really hamper the immersion, and immersion is key to any main Zelda entry. I was definitely not fond of being forced to use motion controls for throwing bombs, flying, and swimming in SS. TP was a port of a Gamecube game and thus only used waggling (Pointer controls aren't motion).

I honestly don't know how Zelda would work for the Gamepad, but I can't imagine Nintendo not thinking ahead when the created the Gamepad for where they wanted to take the Zelda franchise.

Seriously? That doesn't make sense at all to me.

What the hell is "general innovation in the series".

Improving and expanding upon the most core elements of the series, which includes enemies and bosses, item usage, exploration, puzzles, and the distinction between the dungeons and the overworld. I would say that 3D Zelda expands this list to mild platforming and sword fighting.

Why isn't a new control scheme part of this?

Because the controls have never been part of what makes Zelda unique, and in most games, they're independent of the actual content of the game. The innovation that Zelda has achieves is more buttons allowing for less tedium; Zelda just takes advantage of the expected increase in number of buttons and stuff like the Control Stick.

Just because you don't see an immediate use of the Gamepad doesn't mean that the game's developers don't.

I could see plenty of uses for the Game Pad, but they generally don't seem like they would flow organically with the 3D Zelda core formula, aside from map marking on the fly.---More villains need to be protagonists. BIS proves it can work.Ridley, Ganondorf, Bowser, Fawful and King Dedede all for their own games!